Commercial whaling and the environment

Norway wishes to begin the export of minke whale products, and will propose downlisting two stocks at the upcoming CITES (1) meeting in April 2000. Since there is no established international control mechanism to protect endangered whale species, the problem with illegal catch will increase if the export is allowed.

The report "Whale for Sale"(2) shows that already today, without export, illegally caught whale products are sold at Japanese markets. Studies made between 1993 and 1998 show that 11 percent of the samples contained whale species that officially were not caught, i.e. endangered species like the blue whale and the humpback whale. It is irresponsible of Norway to work for trade across borders without ensuring that endangered species are protected. Based on the precautionary principle Norway has the responsibility to ensure that the necessary control mechanisms are in place before export begins.

When a country defies international agreements, this can affect the whole international community. Every year Norway defies the International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling. All countries should co-operate with the IWC and respect their decisions. The recent Russian catch of Beluga-whales(3) is a demonstration of the country’s increasing interest in trade of whale products. It also reinforces Greenpeace´s argument that Norway’s and Japan’s behaviour can lead to other countries doing the same. This is based on facts. A working management regime depends on everyone following the rules.

Historically, commercial whaling has lead to overexploitation. The most striking evidence of this may be the revelation that the former Soviet Union caught 48.477 humpback whales between 1948 and 1973 but reported a catch of only 2.710 (4) whales to the IWC. It is impossible for an international organisation to supervise all whaling. The existence of a commercial market leads to the ruthless exploitation of resources but also to the catching of endangered species.

(1)CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, shall regulate trade with species and stocks of flora and fauna which are threatened by extinction or can be if international trade is not regulated.

(2)Report from International Fund for Animal Welfare, 1998.

(3)Article in The Times, 100999.

(4)Appendix 3, Soviet Antartic Pelagic Whaling after WWII: Review of Actual Catch Data, IWC meeting 1994.

Commercial whaling and the law

According to article 65 in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) "(...) States shall co-operate with a view to the conservation of marine mammals and in the case of cetaceans shall in particular work through the appropriate international organizations for their conservation, management and study."

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has agreed upon a moratorium against commercial whaling.(1) The IWC has in addition called on Norway to stop the whaling and respect the moratorium in 1996, 1997 and 1998.(2) By defying the moratorium and ignoring the requests from the IWC Norway does not work through the IWC for the conservation of whales.

Norway’s objection is allowed in the Whaling Convention of 1946,(3) but this is not relevant in this case. A distinction must be made between strictly following the original Whaling Convention from 1946 and actually cooperating with the appropriate international organization the IWC - which is what is required in UNCLOS. The moratorium on whaling was adopted in the Amendment to the Schedule 1982 and clearly expresses the will of the international community to halt commercial whaling until further notice. Norway’s objection defies the international moratorium, and Norway’s refusal to cooperate with IWC on this matter is in clear breach of article 65 UNCLOS.

Norway signed the UNCLOS 24^th of June 1996. Norway can not claim that they are co-operating with "the appropriate international organizations" when the country continues commercial whaling despite both the international binding moratorium and requests from the IWC to stop the whaling.

(1)The 1982 Amendment to the Schedule:
Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10, catch limits for the killing for commercial purposes of whales from all stocks for the 1986 coastal and the 1985/86 pelagic seasons and thereafter shall be zero. This provision will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits.

(2)At the IWC- meeting in 1999 the chair decided that there were to be no more resolution repeating previous resolutions.

(3)The 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling  (Whaling Convention), art. V (3) (c): thereafter, the amendment shall become effective with respect to all Contracting Governments which have not presented objection but shall no become effective with respect to any Government which has so objected until such date as the objection is withdrawn.